I had a very wise and well informed prof who made good use of that expression when young officer cadets used to press him for the definite "right" answer to various historical questions such as "which side was in the right?".
Well, if you are going to play with big figures on a small table, and abide by a choice that every collection provide a different sort of game, you have to get used to making choices, choices that sometimes go against the expectations formed by decades of miniature historical wargaming.
 |
| Testing the fit for Bridgehead Breakout on a small table with small units of 54's. |
This is the sort of scenario where I tend to picture the units as battalions or even brigades of troops but my 54mm games are supposed to fighting small battles such as those fought during the Fenian Raids where a whole "army" is only as strong as a paper strength battalion or maybe two. Theoretically this should mean longer ranges but since I've chosen to play on a small table, I am going to have to shorten the ranges again, even if it the unit frontage vs range makes units feel more like battalions or else like musket armed troops. If not the sides will be able to fight it out without and need to manouver.
|
| A variation on the scenario played a few years ago with 18 figure, 1/72nd regiments, the way my mind sees a "real" wargame. . |
Now to add the rest of the terrain and the Red army.
You face a common conundrum. It often comes down to a balancing act in what you want and expect in a “game.” If each collection is meant to produce a different type of game, perhaps some collections could be recruited to the simulation end of the gaming spectrum while others gravitate toward a “game?”
ReplyDeleteThat's the general idea, however, a few years ago, after much thought, I made a conscious decision to drop "serious" "simulation" from my list of sorts of games but it would take a long, tedious, probably contentious, series of posts to explain the decision and I don't intend to discuss it on the blog anytime soon.
DeleteMy 42mm figures I always look on as 'toy soldiers' - 4 man cavalry squadrons doesn't bear any resemblance to as squadron in my mind but I can both get away with it and enjoy it if I take that step further away. Meanwhile, 20mm with 12, 24 or 48 figure units - looks a lot better and I can accept them as representing 'real' rather than toy units. At the end of the day they have different purposes.
ReplyDeleteI don't consider size or glossiness as a major issue on whether or not they are toys or representative models, for me, its all in the mind and intent of the gamer.
DeleteSome of this is what the eye is telling the brain, which I think this is especially susceptible to problems with the vertical scale. On my small table I might have two 28mm regiments 12” appart. Even though my 28mm regiments only have a 6” frontage and my 12mm regiments have a 5” frontage, that 12” distance between the 12mm forces ‘looks’ more correct in terms of musket range than it does with the 28mm. Nothing else is really changing, the same number of units are on the table. So for practical purposes it shouldn’t matter, but party pooping brain is not necessarily convinced.
ReplyDeleteIt has taken me most of the century to date to get past that.
DeleteHi Ross- I like both your photos -good to see the 1/72nd AIRFIX and I've always thought they look better in the field of battle than 28mm ACW. Regards. KEV.
ReplyDeleteI think I will always have a soft spot for my 1/72nd figures.
DeleteBoth those games look terrific to me Ross.
ReplyDeleteThey do each have their own quality.
DeleteThe Battle of the Veterans. A very pleasant day with friends, and it great to see the Airfix figures in action. IMO a very "real wargame". Thanks for the memory Ross.
ReplyDeleteIt was a great weekend. One day.....
Delete